PAMWI TISSUES LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner-company is aggrieved with the order dated April 27, 2000, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, H.P. Labour Court, Shimla, in Application No. 207/1996.

(2.) Before proceeding with the contentions urged at the time of hearing in this case, it is necessary to refer to the chequered history of this case. Admittedly the respondent No.2 was working in the factory of the petitioner. His services were terminated on December 5, 1989. Respondent No. 2 claims that the termination of his service was not in accordance with law. Therefore, after having received failure before the Conciliation Officer, the matter was referred by the respondent No. 3 to the Labour Court for adjudication in accordance with the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) Vide Award dated February 22, 1993, respondent No. 2 was ordered to be re-engaged in terms of the said Award with full back wages. He resumed duty on September 27, 1993. Here parties at variance. Petitioner- company alleges that he did not join despite having been called upon to do so, whereas respondent No.2 claims that he did go to resume duty, but was not allowed to enter the factory premises by the security staff. In this background, he sent written communications to the petitioner. Pursuant to it, he received reply and then he joined on September 27, 1993.